I'd say the last thing we need is more religious 'leaders' shoehorned into our political governance process simply by dint of them being religious 'leaders' unless we also open up to the House of Lords to the no less qualified 'leaders' of, say, the butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers. Much better to get rid of anachronisms like the House of Lords in favour of arrangements which are, for want of a better term, democratic.

People should of course be free to carry on being members of religious organisations, and religious organisations should also be free to seek positions in political governance arrangements via the electoral process, but the rest of us should be equally free to reject a religious manifesto on the same basis that we can reject the manifestos of any other group seeking political support: at the ballot-box.

Perhaps if there was more distinction between Philosophical materialists and self seeking social darwinistic nasty acquisitive materialists i'd be happy to let upright PMers represent my interests in parliament.....................But there ain't.

I'd say the last thing we need is more religious 'leaders' shoehorned into our political governance process simply by dint of them being religious 'leaders' unless we also open up to the House of Lords to the no less qualified 'leaders' of, say, the butchers, bakers and candle-stick makers. Much better to get rid of anachronisms like the House of Lords in favour of arrangements which are, for want of a better term, democratic.

People should of course be free to carry on being members of religious organisations, and religious organisations should also be free to seek positions in political governance arrangements via the electoral process, but the rest of us should be equally free to reject a religious manifesto on the same basis that we can reject the manifestos of any other group seeking political s...

There are 26 Bishops in the Lords; and of the other 800 plus, how much do we know of their beliefs? There may be any number of weird beliefs being represented in our Second Chamber. But that doesn't matter, eh; as long as they're not Christian; and even that can't be established.

What you (and the report) seem to be talking about is giving representatives of various organised religions 'official' places in the HoLs. Given that the proportion of people in the UK who have a meaningful active involvement in any organised religion is small (perhaps at best 15%) and declining year on year, why would this be a positive step. To my view it would be a regressive and backward looking step and would, yet again give the impression that we all are (or should be) represented by one of the organised religions. The vast majority aren't and their voice is just as important as the 15% who are involved in an organised religion and might reasonably suggest that a leader from that religion in some manner 'represents them'.

Trying to seem fair by bending over backwards to accommodate perhaps 1-2% who are Jewish or Buddhist etc while ignoring the 85% who chose not to be involved in organised religion is non-sense.

Only if you fail to differentiate between faith - the belief in a deity - and religion - the formalised rituals and practices surrounding a common belief in a deity.

Quote

Ironically enough, of all the world's philosophies, including atheism, there is only one that is truly all-embracing - Christianity!! It is the only one that is 'for all humanity'

I'm sure that all the gays, women and black people that historically were, and in some cases are, persecuted and disenfranchised because of Christianity might take issue with that. You might think Christianity is for everyone, I'd suggest that Humanism is for everyone - if everyone agreed with either of those statements this board wouldn't be here.

50% non religious......we must do what they say because they think they are in a majority............Do the math.

I think they're reacting to the trend, not the moment in time - like they were planning for a probable future, or something, rather than desperately trying to cling to practices that weren't relevant to the modern world.

Perhaps if there was more distinction between Philosophical materialists and self seeking social darwinistic nasty acquisitive materialists i'd be happy to let upright PMers represent my interests in parliament.....................But there ain't.

Perhaps if there were a clearer philosophical difference between 'moderate' and 'extremist' believers, we'd have a little less trepidation about people who bleat on about gods... but there ain't...

Some of the reasons deep down for the formation of extremists seems to be their feelings of non inclusion.

Which is why religion is such a worry. Excluded gay people created the gay-pride movement with carnivals and parades. Excluded atheists wrote books, and became so militant they talked to people really quite politely, on the whole.

The House of Lords is already open to people of all faiths. What we don't need is religious groups being priveleged by having designated seats for them - if the house were representative, it would be an accurate reflection of the faiths of the nation - religion isn't any more special in that regard (arguably considerably less) than gender, sexuality, disability/ability...

Quote

Or is that a can of worms and we are better of with the c of e that at least traditionally connected to government?

Or is it time to separate the idea of religion from that of government entirely, and disconnect religion from politics. Free it from the constraints and give it over entirely the people that want it.

Quote

Would scrapping the religious aspect of the H of L make our disconnection with those of faith even greater and maybe even influence the extremist aspect into becoming worse than ever?

I think, when the report talks of a disconnect between extremists and society, the possibility of Hassim bin Suicide-Vest being motivated by a lack of any apparent representative in the House of Lords is fairly low on the list. It's more immediate social inclusion that's the issue, the media, perhaps the commons.

Which is why religion is such a worry. Excluded gay people created the gay-pride movement with carnivals and parades. Excluded atheists wrote books, and became so militant they talked to people really quite politely, on the whole.

The House of Lords is already open to people of all faiths. What we don't need is religious groups being priveleged by having designated seats for them - if the house were representative, it would be an accurate reflection of the faiths of the nation - religion isn't any more special in that regard (arguably considerably less) than gender, sexuality, disability/ability...

Or is it time to separate the idea of religion from that of government entirely, and disconnect religion from politics. Free it from the constraints and give it over entirely the people that want it.

I think, when the report talks of a disconnect between extremists and society, the possibility of Hassim bin Suicide-Vest being motivated by a lack of any apparent representative in the House of Lords is fairly low on the list. It's more immediate social inclusion that's the issue, the media, perhaps the commons.

O.

Being a well heeled middle class antitheist you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.

Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......

« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 10:04:12 PM by On stage before it wore off. »

What on earth is it with you and this bizarre form of class warfare - atheists are represented in all societal groups. Indeed I always thought it was the actively religious that survey suggest are more likely to be in the ABC1 middle and upper class elite.

you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.

Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......

But unlike quite a number of religious organisations secular society is trying to eradicate discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality. Rather a contrast with religious organisations who campaign in favour of discrimination (e.g. over gay marriage and adoption) and demand opt outs to allow them to continue to discriminate (e.g. Church of England, RCC etc etc), whose practice in refusing to allow gay people into many roles would land them in court if they were a secular organisation.

So, no, I won't take any lectures from religious apologists on equality issues. Sort your own house out then perhaps your views might have some degree of credibility - currently they don't.

Being a well heeled middle class antitheist you will of course be oblivious to a well of homophobia which still exists in the secular masses.

I wish I were as well-heeled as you appear to think I am, and we'll disregard your continued (deliberate?) misunderstanding of the difference bewteen atheism and anti-theism. I'm well aware of the thread of homophobia that exists through society, I'm exposed to it unfortunately regularly.

Quote

Atheists are not excluded in this society but want exactly that, the exclusion of religious people......

You're confusing ridding establishment of religious privelege for ridding establishment of religious people. Reserved seats for Bishops in the House of Lords, for instance, is religious privilege. Removing them is not 'excluding religious people', that would be banning Christians from the House of Lords.